Mother Outraged After Her Daughter’s Image Appears on Pro-Life Billboard
- Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:39am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
A mother in New York City is demanding a pro-life group take down its billboard after she discovered the group used her daughter’s image on it. But there’s just one problem: the mother signed a release form allowing the modeling company who took the picture to sell it as a stock photo.
The billboard, which appears in the SoHo district in Manhattan, is sparking controversy for its message: “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in the Womb.” That, say critics, is wrong and even racist.
“Common decency demands it be taken down.” Christine Quinn, the Speaker of New York City council, told the London Telegraph. “To refer to a woman‘s legal right to an abortion as a ’genocidal plot’ is not only absurd, but offensive to women and to communities of color.”
“I would never endorse something like that,” Tricia Fraser, mother of Anissa, 6, whose image appears on the billboard, told WNYW. “Especially with my child’s image.”
Tricia signed her kids up with a modeling agency two years ago and had their pictures taken. And despite signing a release form that she knew meant the images could become stock photos, she’s not happy.
“It‘s bad enough you’re saying this about African Americans, but then you put a child with an innocent face,” she added. “I just want the image off of it. Use another image — just not hers.
The Texas-based group Life Always is sponsoring the billboard.
“During Black History Month, we celebrate our history, but our future is in jeopardy as a genocidal plot is carried out through abortion,” said Life Always Board Member Pastor Stephen Broden, who’s also black, in a press release.
According to statistics on the group’s website, “An African American baby is three times more likely to be aborted from the womb as a white baby,“ and ”Twice as many African Americans have died from abortion than the combined tolls of violent crimes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, and AIDS.”
The billboard is part of an upcoming national campaign and is specifically meant to target abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
“The image was properly licensed through a reputable stock image service,” the group told WNYW regarding the controversy. “We’ll be looking into the origin of the image and are certainly open to talking to the family directly if they have any concerns.”
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 707 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 559 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 376 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 292 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 367 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (242)
Lion420
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:17am“Common decency demands it be taken down.” Christine Quinn, the Speaker of New York City council. Really? Really? These folks are so concerned about “common decency”, yet they ignore common decency, when it tells them ABORTION IS NOT JUST WRONG…IT”S MURDER.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:23amAre you saying that our side doesn’t have to behave decently because THEY are so indecent?
Report Post »zorro
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:18am@Islesfordian….
I’m really confused as to why you keep using the words “immoral” or “indecent.” What exactly did Life Always do wrong? We have determined the message is factual. They paid for the picture from a legitimate source. The mother of this child was paid for her services. All of it is legal, moral, and decent. Where is the wrong you speak of? They did everything right. The only ones who don‘t like it are the people who sold their daughter’s picture to strangers not caring who it went to. I bet the check is cashed though.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:34amUsing someone’s image without their specific consent is wrong. Period. A vague waiver does not count. It may count legally, but not morally.
You should not coerce by force, or by legal mechanism, a person to confess what he doesn’t believe or endorce what he opposes. That is the basis of my ethical complaint. It is like a legal trap was set into which the foolish mother walked and she sold her daughter’s picture, and in doing this sold part of her daughter’s reputation. Sales of this kind may be legal, but they are no more moral than slavery or prostitution.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:58amZorro, almost every assertion of fact in your comment is wrong. watch the video. The mother did not “sell” her dughter’s pictures. That’s not how these things work with professional photograpers. She received no money.
But even if she did. It doesn’t make it right. You confuse legal with moral. Abortion is legal. Does that make it right? There is nothing ight in treating a person‘s picture as an indifferent commodity as if it didn’t intrinsically belong to the person. That association can’t be dissolved by legal waiver, any more than the personhood of the baby in the womb can be dissolved by some Supreme Court justices.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:02pmShe gave them permission to use her daugheter’s photo, guy. You refuse to understand that. By legal waiver or not, she gave them permission to do it. Period. Your beef, Islesfordian, is with that organization that now owns that picture. Your beef is with this idiot mother who allowed the highest bidder to use her daughter’s likeness without knowing who they were. Life Always did absolutely nothing wrong. And I assure you, they will make things right even though they don’t have to either legally or morally.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:08pmAnd just for the record, I happen to know how these things with photographers work as well. She may not have been paid cash but she was paid. She likely got copies of those photos for free. I don’t know what she got but no one would be stupid enough to sign away the rights of the photos to be allowed to be sold further down the line for nothing. She acknoledges KNOWING the photos could be sold. She just didn’t THINK they would be.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:00pmMy beef, Zorro, is with a Christian organization that thinks photos of children can be treated as mere commodities. That may be the way the legal system works but it doesn’t seem ethical or moral to me.
I wonder if those photos were used to sell something you and the mother both found repugnant you might sing a different tune. Try taking abortion out of the equation and the ethical dimension will become a little clearer. If you say that abortion CAN’T be removed from the equation you are acknowledging that ethical and moral questions are irrelevant if your cause is right. That is a frightening road to travel down.
Also, saying that Life Always should have behaved better says nothing about the righteousness of the mother. She could be judged a total hypocrite scumbag and still have a justifiable complaint. Truth sometimes works that way. If Saint Peter robbed Judas he would still be guilty of theft.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 2:08pmIslesfordian….I understand and thank you for your patience in explaining your position. If I take the abortion, or rather, the Pro-Life message out of the picture, the ethical dimension does become more clearer.
Still, you have to understand Life Always feels their message is that of a christian nature. Their intention was not to offend or hurt anyone. I don‘t believe they feel as cold about the mother’s feelings as perhaps I do. They appear to want to make amends and it is my belief they will.
If this mother were concerned with her daughter’s picture being used as, for example, a billboard advertising child prostitution, she should have thought of that BEFORE she signed a release. The fact of the matter is, the MOTHER made her daughter’s image a commodity, not Life Always. But I get it…that does not make her complaint any less valid. It only makes her a thoughtless idiot.
If you would like to blame Life Always for buying it, I understand and I even somewhat agree with you now. Perhaps the organization should have found a parent willing to lend their child’s image for this specific purpose. And perhaps in the future, to avoid issues like this, they will.
Report Post »PoliticallyAwake
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 2:11pm@Islesfordian – I was in general agreement with you on the one point, but…
Islesfordian: “Using someone’s image without their specific consent is wrong. Period. A vague waiver does not count. It may count legally, but not morally.”
Islesfordian: “My beef, Zorro, is with a Christian organization that thinks photos of children can be treated as mere commodities.”
Now I think you are being naive and ridiculous. Of course photos of children (from stock photo agencies) are commodities. I would bet I could go to YOUR church’s website and find plenty of stock images of children and/or families, some of whom *gasp* may not even be Christian. And I would bet dollars to donuts that your church staff did not seek out the model’s specific permission for their images to be used to promote a Christian organization. Get real.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 25, 2011 at 3:41pm” I would bet I could go to YOUR church’s website and find plenty of stock images of children and/or families, some of whom *gasp* may not even be Christian.”
And do you think it would be right to take the image of ONE of those people and put it on a huge billboard in public? Dp you think those images are MERE commodities? If I found a picture of you on some church bulliten could I use it any way I pleased? Is there not some sense of morality that says that I shouldn’t?
Report Post »Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:14amHere it comes….”I didn’t understand the release” But, you sure understood the money didn’t you?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:04amWhat money? Try being informed before judging. That might be nice.
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:12amTruth hurts.
Report Post »IMTHATGUY
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:12amRemove the emotion from the argument and just look at the facts. That is an astonishing number. Genocide much? Why aren’t the kings of pandering (JJ and the Rev Al) all up in arms about this FACT?!! It’s time that abortion stop being considered a form of contraception. Enough is enough already. Good God…
Report Post »glen_kelso2000
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:08amPeople should read about Margaret Sanger the genocide thing would not seem so far fetched. Search eugenics.
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:06amIf someone wants to murder their unborn kid why stop em ? think about this for a second, you have someone soo messed up that they think its ok to rip apart a baby in the womb. Do you really want them breeding ? you dont want that dirty dna passed a long and you sure dont want them raising a kid.
I guess I support stupid people not successfully breeding, sad they have to murder their own unborn child but at least its one less kid dragging down the system.
when you get lemons make lemonade I guess.
Report Post »swampdog
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:41amYou’re not serious… “If someone wants to murder their unborn kid why stop em ?” Why? Because we should be protecting the innocent, that’s why. These are human lives we are talking about.
Report Post »Women have to make better choices BEFORE they decide to lay on their backs and risk getting pregnant. Once they become pregnant, too bad, have the baby & put it up for adoption. There are plenty of couples looking to adopt children of even (to quote you) “stupid people”.
Citizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:56amSwampdog I feel ya. But here are a few things to consider.
In this day and age kids or people are no low commodity and they are easily replaced, look at all the poeple that have no food and are in constant war but breed like rats.
Perhaps keep abortion legal but the only way the mother can do it is if she stops her own heart and kills the baby that way.
That my friend would be a twofer, So dont get upset over ripping a unborn child apart look at it like a lib – you are keeping down welfare.
Report Post »DianeCee
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:36amCitizen,,,,your words have meaning! I, too, am heavily burdened by being taxed to feed, house, medicate and educate a group of people who habitually live off of other people’s elbow grease. The slums, the violence and other such crimes depict the notion that “the first to evolve is the first to become extinct”. I am not in favor of abortion, but I am in favor addressing reality.
Report Post »Rapunzel
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:39amYou have just described the evil ‘logic’ behind eugenics. You must have a deep admiration for Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, and the many others who sought to eliminate undesirable peoples and prevent them from reproducing.
All human life is sacred and should be protected, without regard to ancestry. That is why God decreed capital punishment in Genesis 9:6 – Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:23pmno repunzal not at all – I say harm no one and kill no one.
I am not saying abort the baby, I am not forcing them to do it nor do I want them to. lets face it someone who is willing to rip their baby apart isnt going to listen to sound logic most often.
But then when THEY do it I am glad I dont have to pay for that childs upbringing.
so im not saying go out and kill ignorant people but I am saying let them be free to kill them and their own bloodline, see the big dif ?
Report Post »gr8photoman
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:05amIf the woman signed a release form and the picture was bought from a reputable stock photography site she no longer has a choice in the matter. Yes, whomever this group is they probably should have used one of their own children, to avoid the controversy. I’m sure this woman is going to raise immortal hell…but the fact is, as a photographer I can tell you…if she signed a valid release form, in a court of law she’s beaten before she sits down.
She should have checked the fine print.
She should also examine her heart a little better, personally I would call in genocide too. Margaret Sanger never had any compunctions about the mind, or any other part of a child, being a good thing to waste.
Report Post »Comeandtakeit
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:02amShe objects to using the face of her “innocent child” but has no problem killing other innocent children. Unbelievable.
Report Post »4thGenerationWarrior
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:02amI wish people, like this woman, would do their homework before they get on their huffy bike and yell and scream…your child is the face of a life-saving, life-altering movement. She should have realized that they can use her kids’ images without payment or condition. The message…if she did her homework…she would realize it is a true statement.
Report Post »SND97
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:00amIf she pays back the money to the agency she got and pays to have the ad removed, remove it, Oh and she gives up her right to the contact, Fair Enough?
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:00amThe truth shall set you free.
It also might let you live!
Report Post »mimitweetin
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:59amFunny thing is she put her kids up to MAKE MONEY in this Capitalist Society. Now her daughter is very likely to get work from this, which is what the mother wanted or she wouldn’t have signed the release to have her daughter promoted. Here is a Prime Example of, I wanna be rich and I’m going to use my kids to do it. If you don‘t want your childrens images posted then DON’T SIGN A BLANKET RELEASE. This is no different than giving someone a blank check. I wonder how long before Oblabla chimes in?
Report Post »Army Colors
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:59amThe really sad part about this story, in my opinion, is that I’m willing to bet that within a week, that billboard will be replaced by another without the child’s picture on it. Life Always may have the law on their side, but sadly will likely see the Public Relations fallout as undesirable, and take down the offending picture rather than stick to their guns.
Report Post »Ben
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:58amIt’s racist? Maybe they should check out who’s behind it. Two of the four board members (inlcuding the founder) are black.
The racism is all from the liberals, as usual.
Report Post »Ialmostforgot
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:57amI wish they would stop using ‘African American’ (there’s no such thing). Is there a ‘African American’ Crayola Crayon?
Report Post »Ialmostforgot
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:59am… and why don‘t they call it ’African American History’ month instead of Black History Month. What are people so afraid of?
Report Post »Ialmostforgot
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:03am.. and does that mean the other 11 months are ‘American American’ (this means White) History Months?
Report Post »4thGenerationWarrior
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:07amMore to the point…UNLESS the person is from Africa and is an American citizen they are NOT African-American. More specifically, a white African whom natualizes to the US…IS an AUTHENTIC African-American…
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:11amyou are american or not, you put this country first or you dont.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:46am… and why don‘t they call it ’African American History’ month instead of Black History Month. What are people so afraid of?
Because that would include white people like Charlize Theron. Has to be dedicated to the race and not the “PC” term that could include other races. And there is Latino history month, I think it is May(They must be racist because they get a longer month). And there is Womens history month (March). And there is Asia-pacific heritage month. Not sure if there is a Islam history month yet, bet Obama can make it so. Or gay and lesbian history month. We need more focus on what we can divide the country over, Multiculruralism is the key.
Report Post »ProPatriaVigilans
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:56amThis is what happens when you try to profit from your children, Who in their right mind would WHORE their small children out to advertising agencies anyway. I feel sorry for the kid .
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:04amMaybe why she is upset. Has she been paid for the pic?? She is no doubt waiting for the check in the mail.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:54ami find it interesting how many people will call that poster racist, and still have no problem with how many African American babies are slaughtered in the womb
twice as many African Americans by abortion than all the violent crimes, cancer heart disease accidents and aids
THEY ARE WILLINGLY AND BLINDLY KILLING THEIR FUTURE WITHOUT A SHOT BEING FIRED margaret sanger must be so pleased with how successful her plan to rid the world of what she considered the drudges of society
i try to tell everyone i know the true African American history, and who really stood for or against them…………………they need to know the truth
Report Post »cece959
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:00amThe uneducated won‘t listen to the truth because the truth doesn’t come in the form of handouts.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:14amThe true problem is, black women are damned if they get abortions and damned if they don’t and take welfare for all the kids they would spit out due to the inability to take responsiblity for the irresponsibilty of their actions.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:52amI guess the truth really does hurt.
Report Post »Citizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:52amShe must be a dem – she signed a release but didnt fully understand it and now wants to cry and have everyone do something about it.
Report Post »lillianrose
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:14amShe signed her child up, signed legal doc’s, childs picture was used and she got her money. What I am surprised is how many parents are ok with kids wearing hardly nothing at all and posing in ways that are not just right.
Report Post »Highland
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:52am“To refer to a woman‘s legal right to an abortion as a ’genocidal plot’ is not only absurd, but offensive to women and to communities of color.”
Margaret Sanger is having a good laugh over Ms. Quinn’s stupidity.
Report Post »snowflake220
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:52amThe reason twice as many black babies are aborted is because twice as many blacks get pregnant than whites. Nothing racist there. It’s a well known fact that there are many more single black mothers then single white mothers.
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:49amSnowflake220,
Report Post »That may very well be (I have not seen the stats on that), but it‘s also because Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are mostly in predominately Black and/or poor neighborhoods – the better to see and be seen by its “clientele”. Definitely a calculated marketing strategy by PP so as to reap the most monetary rewards.
Average_JoeMN
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:51amTo the mother: tough luck, darlin’ – you signed the waiver. From the way it sounds your daughter is lucky to have survived. Seems like it’s an accurate ad.
Report Post »BlazingInSC
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:50amWow, how does that make daughter feel to know her mom would never endorse a pro-life message? I guess she should be counting her lucky stars her mom chose not to have her murdered….
Report Post »redbone007
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:07amI was thinking the same.
Report Post »MaggieRose
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:46amDitto, here… her mother would be ok if it showed the daughter’s lifeless form in the trash or emesis basin post-abortion?
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:49amReally they should have found a child of a pro-lifer. So many people are in the dark concerning abortions and apparently this mother is. I would be proud to have my child represent pro-life.
Report Post »lylee
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:36amI’m sure the child in the picture was pro-life immediately after birth, only after they have had time to be corrupted by the world do they become pro-abortion.
Report Post »HillBillySam1
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:04amThe child’s mother may be pro-choice but I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the little girl is VERY much in favor of life…….otherwise, she wouldn’t be around to have her picture taken……just sayin’……
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:42amShe signed the release for the picture to be used by them; she should have read it better and asked questions ahead of time before putting pen to the paper.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 7:54am“It‘s bad enough you’re saying this about African Americans, but then you put a child with an innocent face,” she added. “I just want the image off of it. Use another image — just not hers.
Sad when it is true. I guess she is one of those “good fall in line with your race” women and not the “think for yourself” women that will look at the numbers of how many blacks get abortions because they live in the innercity slums.
Report Post »cnsrvtvj
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:00amThat’s really the bottom line on this one Snow. Another example of why you need to read AND understand the implications before you sign anything. Perhaps they can work something out.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – Tea Party News
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:09amDemocrats must be the Jedi Masters. They have convinced 90% of blacks that the Democrats have their backs. The democrats that back Planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood that was started by the outspoken racist liberal of Marget Satcher.
ComeAndTakeThis
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:11amThe woman is upset that her child’s image is used to endorse the ultimate gift from god. The question that should be asked is what does she want the image to endorse.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:12am***Marget Sanger***
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:12am@CnsrvtvJ
I hope so.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:20amIt still shouldn’t be used this way, signed release or no. It’s not a matter of legality. It’s a matter of morality.
beekeeper
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:23amI like the “innocent face” angle – the mom would have been OK with it if her daughter had a “not so innocent” face?
She signed the papers, released the photos, now wants a do-over?
What was the statistic – HALF of the registered pregnancies in NYC ended in abortion. HALF. That doesn’t sound too safe for the baby…
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:53am@Islesfordian
Cause abortion for the sake of birthcontrol is soooooo “Moral’?
Report Post »LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:58amPay her, then all things will be ok
Report Post »Cheekymnky2
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 8:59amSo now, not only has she released her daughter’s photo by signing the contract, but released her name in the news story. Some people should just go stop.
Report Post »Just A Private
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:00amIslesForDian – I am confused by your statement. saving babies from murder is immoral?
Report Post »MasterTweak
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:00amIslesfordian, Do you even know what abortion is? I mean Besides the lack of stating when a human being is alive and has rights, I mean come on, that Living tissue known as the Egg and Sperm which combine to create a human life. The morality should be that the choice is really at to either have sex with the man and risk pregnancy, or not to. The ideal that she can have a second choice to murder the human life growing inside her, is wrong. Also you really should support these Pro-Life groups, Why? Well because Pro-Choice is Pro-Human Trafficking, and that is Modern Day Slavery that Happens all over the world, even here in the US. Maybe even in your own town, Sadly its more likely to be in your town if you have a “Planned Murder in da Hood”. Because they have taken on the ideal to embrace “Rape” as a business1 promoter.
Report Post »proudpatriot77
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:04amIts a provacative ad meant to gain attention and I guess it worked. Maybe now the subject can be debated openly. Why cant the left just be honest about their stance? It isnt about a woman’s right to choose. It is about; 1.) making money off abortions 2.) getting rid of what the left considers a drain on society. If it was about anything other than that then the left wouldnt be so supportive of Islamists who treat women like animals.
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:21amSo can we assume that if it were “pro-abortion” the mother would have been fine with using her daughters pic?
Report Post »anunyapete
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:30amSounds to me like she wants $$$ for her daughter’s picture being used. As mentioned by others, this may well be buyer’s remorse.
And is it racist? Well, not if it is factual. Someone should ask these questions — how many African Americans die from causes other than natural causes. Then ask how many die from abortions. If the “abortion” number is higher than the “other than natural causes” number, the billboard is accurate.
No, I do not have those numbers at my disposal. I leave that type of research to investigative reporters. Kind of my way of protecting their right to their jobs…
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:35amYou guys that wonder whetehr I know how immoral abortion is don‘t know me well and haven’t read what I have said elsewhere.
That’s fine. Let me be clear. ABORTION IS MURDER. No “ifs”, “ands” or “buts”. However, that fact does not justify doing something wrong to make the point. We should be more ethical on our side than they are.
Frankly, some of you sound like you believe that because your cuase is right you don’t have to worry about ethics, that the rightness of our cause makes all our actions right.
You do know that is EXACTLY how progressives think. We should be waaay better than that
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:55am@Islesfordian
I wasn’t going to go find everything else you have ever written about. The part about using a picture of a girl of whom her mother signed off saying anyone can use this picture for advertisement as long as she gets paid as being immoral on the part of the agency or the mother? I don’t see what moral hiccup you are talking about other than what could be from the mother of trying to exploit her child.
@anunyapete
Sad that the numbers are right in front of you and you ignored them. They were even in some of the responses to the OP you responded to.
”Twice as many African Americans have died from abortion than the combined tolls of violent crimes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, and AIDS.”
Report Post »glennbeckisstooopid
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 9:56amSell as a stock photo? Does that mean that anybody can buy it? Anybody? Really? How does she know who they are selling it to? They could sell it to anyone. Anyone! And obviously they sold it to the most perverted people possible.
HillBillySam1
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:06amThe child’s mother is obviously a graduate of the “Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson School of Shakedown Artistry”……
Report Post »rlmeals
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:11am@wildjoker5: EXACTLY…one only needs to understand the beliefs of Margaret Sanger to realize why this is being called a “genocidal plot.” It‘s a shame that many black people are such followers who don’t think for themselves that they can’t go research for themselves and understand what a detriment many of these “social services” are to their race. What a statistic…more blacks killed from abortion than violent crimes? You‘d think they’d be outraged…and it baffles me why so many blacks, a demographic that is majority Christian, seem to think abortion is not murder. I don’t have a statistic on it, but my common sense says: a majority of blacks are Christians, yet they have the highest abortion rates and call in their right, and think it’s a social service…something’s just messed up about that.
Report Post »Dstarr55
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:26amI don’t usually feed the trolls but GBisstooopid, How is an organization trying to prevent the death of unborn babies perverted? That doesn’t even make sense. Perhaps you should look up the definition of perverted. The facts are this mother sold the images of her child to be sold to advertisers – she did not put conditions on the use of the images, and therefore has no legal leg to stand on. It may be a lesson well learned but there is nothing she can do about the images she has already signed a release for. The pro-life group has a truthful message (you may disagree but facts are facts) and they are in their right to buy a photo to be used on their posters.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:28am“The part about using a picture of a girl of whom her mother signed off saying anyone can use this picture for advertisement as long as she gets paid as being immoral on the part of the agency or the mother? ”
I don’t know how the release she signed actually reads. I am certain that she was not epecting to be paid for any use of her duaghter’s picture. I am more certain that she receives nothing when her daugter’s picture is sold. What is immoral is the selling of the image absent of explicit permission for the specific use, whether legal or not. LEGAL does not equate to MORAL. The pro-life agenct certainly should have used a model whose parents were willing to have her portray that message.
I would feel the same way if a Muslim child’s picture was used for a Christian ad, and vice versa, even though I approve of converting Muslims to Christ.
People’s images belong to them in a way that legal waivers cannot sever. Moral people should acknowledge that, The godless I expect to acknowledge nothing besides their stomachs and wallets.
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:38amnothing wrong or racist about it.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:39am“But there’s just one problem: the mother signed a release form allowing the modeling company who took the picture to sell it as a stock photo.”
Give me my money but take my child’s picture down!
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:51am@Islesfordian
The mother got paid for the picture, probably a lump flat sum with no royalties. She put her kid into a pool of pictures to be bought from a distrubuter. The mother had the moral obligation to keep her kid from being exploited in a way the mother did not agree with. The mother only saw the $$ signs when signing away the rights to her childs likeness. If you are bashing the agency for providing the property they aquired, I don’t see your argument of the agency as being immoral. They didn’t sell it to pedophiles. They didn’t sell it to the deomcratic formed KKK. They sold it to a group with a message about blacks being killed in the womb twice as many times as being killed by the 5 most major ways of dying for black in America. Were they going to use a white kid for this image. The mother sold the picture with no reguard of what ads her daughter might be used for. The ad was for promoting births in the black community, the girl was born and she is black, she fits the ad.
Are you saying the agency is immoral, or the mother?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:52amIt’s important to note that the mother recieved no money in exchange for these photos,. She paid the photographer to take them. Perhaps many of you should reflect on how you leap to conclusions to judge and condemn her because of opposition to her views, an opposition that I share.
The bottom line on my philosophical opposition to wht the photographer did and what the pro-life group did is this: Using someone’s image without their specific consent is wrong. Period. A vague waiver does not count. It may count legally, but not morally.
You should not coerce by force, or by legal mechanism, a person to confess what he doesn’t believe or endorce what he opposes. That is the basis of my ethical complaint. It is like a legal trap was set into which the foolish mother walked and she sold her daughter’s picture, and in doing this sold part of her daughter’s reputation. Sales of this kind may be legal, but they are no more moral than slavery or prostitution.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:52amHmmm. A. she signed the release. B. The phrase used on the billboard is a fact, being that the womb is where more black people are murdered than anywhere else. C. If you want your child’s picture to only be used for the murderous causes of your own choosing, make sure you keep the rights to the pictures you sell.
Report Post »natstew
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:56amPro- abortionists can’t stand the truth!
Report Post »And the truth is, abortion hurts the black community most. Democrats have destroyed the black family structure and now their abortion mills are destroying the black race!
smitty8
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:04amDoes this woman not understand that this group is trying to save children like hers and children of her race? Why is she fighting against that?
Report Post »freeus
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:05amShe signed the papers. Does Tricia Fraser have abortion guilt?
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:06amIslesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 10:52am
It’s important to note that the mother recieved no money in exchange for these photos,. She paid the photographer to take them. Perhaps many of you should reflect on how you leap to conclusions to judge and condemn her because of opposition to her views, an opposition that I share.
REALLY?!? She recieved NO money from allowing anyone to use her childs likeness? She just freely gave the picture to a “talent scout” agency and left at that? You are seriously telling me if her daughter’s picture was picked up for an ad in a magazine, the magazine would never pay the parent? The pro-life people had to payed something for the picture, and they paid it to the talent agency who should have taken 10% and given the rest to the mother. Were did you find your “facts” that she never got paid? I know you need to pay a photographer to take the pictures in the first place, but after a talent agent distibutes them, they get paid and so does the “talent”. Sorry, modeling agency.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:06amAAAHHHHH………..but if our liberal misguided commentators are honest and do their research they will discover 2 incontrovertible FACTS: 1) legalized abortion, in this country, was pushed by a racist woman who wanted, more or less, a genocidal tool to help thin the “undesirable population”. Margaret Sanger is Planned Parenthood’s skeleton in the closet because of her eugenic views…..
“Keep reading through Margaret‘s Planned Parenthood bio and you’ll find this casual disclaimer in apparent reference to her vocal support of eugenics. “Sanger also entertained some popular ideas of her own time that are out of keeping with our thinking today.” Despite this ambiguous qualification, there is no record of Planned Parenthood ever specifically denouncing anything Margaret ever said or did. And from a policy perspective, the abortion industry’s disproportionate focus on minority communities certainly indicates that Planned Parenthood is just as devoted to limiting the number of “human weeds” (Margaret’s term) as their founder was.”
2) Black women are the largest recipients of abortion in the USA percentage wise of the relative populations. Nearly 5 times as likely as white women and twice as likely as Latino women.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html
Report Post »http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html
wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:08am@smitty8
No smitty, she doesn’t understand that. That was not information given to her by the democratic party. The democrats were the masters before the civil war, blacks got their freedoms, now the democrats are back to being the masters again.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:08am@ GLENNBECKISSOSMAAART…………….obviously you do not understand the legality of signing a release my misinformed pro-abortionist opponent……….
Report Post »White Devil
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:11amRACE, RACE, RACE. Thats all she can squeal. She was so busy making sure little Watisha could be the next super model that she would sign anything. If the ad was for planned parent hood or “United ***** College Fund” or “Black History Month” “The Congressional Black Caucus” she would not have complained but would have been proud. This boils down to the fact she is a racist ***** woman with an agenda against women who want their babies to live and not murdered in the womb and sucked through a tube into the trash.
Report Post »ForgivenWretch
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:18amBuyer’s remorse.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:20amlegally, Life Always only needed a general consent to use the child’s image. Legally they didn’t have to get her consent to use it for the SPECIFIC purpose they did. But they still should have ethically. It would have been the right thing to do.
We are not moral because we follow man‘s laws and nothing but man’s laws. We are moral when we do what is right regardless of man’s laws.
I‘m not sure I even like the idea of plastering a child’s face on public bill boards like this, especially to use it in a heated political issue. Whatever the mopther’s faults, and I refuse to engage in blaim laying against her, the child certainly shouldn’t be used as a pawn.
And don’t go prattling on about how just and right the cause is. That kind of blind partisan self-righteousness sickens me, exspecially whne it somes from my side.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:22amAmazing that any information provided by the right that is aimed at educating the black community about what the left has ALWAYS stood for is a racist atack and should be delt with by screaming “RACISM”.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:22amThe mother must be a liberal/progressive. First, our socialist-in-chief thinks no one should be ‘punished’ for making bad decisions; and now we have further proof: please don‘t use my daughter’s photo, even though I signed a release – it was a mistake – I really didn’t mean it.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:31am@Islesfordian
Why wouldn’t you put blame on the mother? She knew what she was doing.
I haven’t put anything on here arguing your remarks other than saying the samething you are, just because abortions are legal, doesn’t make them moral. But what I have been trying to get from you was why do you think it isn’t moral for the modeling agency to use the picture signed over by the mother for any respectable sign that is portraying the truth? You say it is not about man’s laws that keep us moral, but that of what keeps us moral? If you are trying to inject religion into this debate, you are trying to say abortions are immoral but using a picture that is legally obtained by lawful actions (based on the moral compass of religion) to bring some education to a group of people about an immoral act is in itself immoral? What is the morallity issue you are trying to convey?
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:39am@ ISLESFORDIAN………Seems the longer you typed the worse your spelling became. I think you are totally wrong on this issue !!!! Abortion, particularly as it preys upon minority communities is pure evil incarnate. It is an assault on the innocent that have no voice. This is an attempt to “break it down” for those who want to de-personalize the issue. Abortion is awful awful awful. I have seen the dismembered fetus and you think using a sweet child’s image to convey the message that these children are precious and real and that each child aborted could easily be represented by this image is unethical???? So I suppose we should avoid using images of kids to show that abortion kills these precious ones????? I think sir your sense of ethics is misguided. Was Jesus wrong and unethical when he had little children sit on his lap and then began to teach the crowd, if anyone would harm one of these little ones it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and thrown in the deepest sea?????? I think not. This is no different. The image of the child points to the preciousness of every human life it gives a personal touch to the debate that pro-abortionist desperately try to remove because they know how damaging it can be !!!!!! If it saves just one child just one by causing a woman to reconsider an abortion then it was worth and in my opinion the most ethical thing they could have done sir !!!!!!!
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:51am@ ISLESFORDIAN…………..Factually the were exactly factual………legally they were completely above board…….biblically they were completely aligned with Jesus’ own actions………..ethically they were completely moral……Where is your argument?????????
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:51am“Were did you find your “facts” that she never got paid? ”
From watching the news video. Novel concept, I know.
“I know you need to pay a photographer to take the pictures in the first place, but after a talent agent distibutes them, they get paid and so does the “talent”.”
No, this isn’t true. The photographer who takes the photos can also sell them without passing on any money to the individuals. Usually the talent agemcy merely passes around photos to drum up business for their clients, and the agency then charges for that service or get a cut of the money paid by those who mactually use the talent.
You see, she signed a waiver. I don’t know if you have been paying attention to that. That waiver means that the photographer has rights to use and sell the photos. they are his property, legally. I say they aren’t his entirely, ethically. So Life Always didn’t have the right to “buy” them.
Report Post »Ibanez6
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:57amI couln’t agree more Snowleopard.
Report Post »arx
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 11:59amWell said watchtheotherhand. Islefordian is not making sense. One hand hand he professes to disdain abortion, and on the other effectively describes the defense of innocent life as “prattling…blind partisan self-righteousness“ that ”sickens” him. Something is wrong there. Isles, you need a visit to the general.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:25pmwatchtheotherhanmd,
Actually the FASTER I type the worse my spelling becomes. But what does that matter. Do you presume that spelling or typos has ANYTHING to do with truth?
“Was Jesus wrong and unethical when he had little children sit on his lap and then began to teach the crowd, ”
Jesus didn’t grab them without their permission. the children were running up to him. Far more than a vague implied consent, in my opinion.
“If it saves just one child just one by causing a woman to reconsider an abortion then it was worth and in my opinion the most ethical thing they could have done sir ”
A purely utilitarian argument. “The ends justify the means”. This is the very opposite of ethics.
“Factually the were exactly factual” Granted
“legally they were completely above board” Again granted, but so is abortion sadly. Your point?……
“biblically they were completely aligned with Jesus’ own actions” This you haven’t demonstrated in the slightests
“ethically they were completely moral” This is a mere assertion, not an argument
“Where is your argument?????????” Perhaps you can‘t see it because you don’t know what what looks like, to judge by the flimsy logic you adduce here. Try paying attention.
Here, I’ll try again: You should not coerce by force or by legal mechanism a person to seem to confess what he doesn’t believe or endorce what he opposes. I wouldn‘t do it to you even if I had the legal right and I wouldn’t want anyomne to do it to me. My reputation, even to be a fool, should be MY possession and not for anyone to buy.
Report Post »wildjoker5
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:49pm@Islesfordian
I was just reading the article and haven’t seen the video. I conceed that fact and forgot about it as I have been trying to get the information from you. I will watch it when I get the opportunity to.
Report Post »retriever
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 12:59pmIf she knew how to read, this wouldn’t have happended. Would she rather have the picture appear in an ad for killing children (abortion)?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:03pmLOL .. her “outrage” is causing a lot of free publicity .. don’t think that maybe she will / is promoting this child’s “career”?
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:12pm@ISLESFORDIAN…………..O.K. my nonsensical inconsistent friend. Here we go. First, you think you are moral and ethical. However, you are in error. This mother signed a legal waiver knowing that the image could be used without her approval to anyone it was sold to. If she wasn’t “down” with that she shouldn’t have signed the waiver. Also, your example of abortion being legal as a justification of your assertion is a logical fallacy. Using the image did not violate any moral biblical principal at all (I would like your biblical reference on what exactly it violated). Abortion on the other hand is biblically addressed under the principle that life and its preciousness is derived from being created in God’s image and therefore is to be protected and honored. Secondly, “Jesus, didn’t grab them” uh you need to be a little more honest there my simple one. The adults were trying to prevent the children from getting to Jesus !!!!! And he rebuked them by taking them onto his lap to then use them as an illustration as to how precious they were in His sight. You obviously, are not bibline. Thirdly, “The end justifies the means” when nothing wrong was done ethically, legally, or otherwise, you have inserted your assertions to make a factual statement, that is logically inconsistent. It is only a matter of your misguided ethics that anything was done wrong, so at best it is utilitarian based on YOUR bias and presupposition of morality, which I believe to be completely misguided and inconsistent. Therefore, what I stated was completely accurate regarding ethics. Yours is an argument from a weak position and I believe you are struggling to defend it with sound coherent logic. If someone, such as yourself, would not want their image to be used to endorse something one did not agree with then simply do not sign the waiver, it is that simple. Did this group have an obligation to check with the stock photo company, “hey hey can we speak with this little girl’s mother that consented to the use of this image to see if she agrees with our message or not”. I think you see the ridiculous nature of what you are suggesting. If a mother had an image of their child taken and signed a waiver and an abortionist used the image for their message in some way I would say, “Mom perhaps the better wisdom would not have been to sign the waiver”. Not hey you abortionist you are so unethical how could you use that image….you didn’t even check to see if the parents agreed with your message or not. That sir is a silly statement. Now if the mother contacts the group and asks for the removal and they are in agreement fine that is their call, but to suggest they have acted unethical or immoral is simply a false assertion. It is simply your opinion of morality that they had to get an even more special consent to use this image then what had already been obtained. I find your defense fairly weak and I believe you have failed to convince many of your position that somehow this group acted immorally or unethically based on any biblical principle or legal principle. Finally, your typing errors were a joke lighten up I was not implying it had anything to do with your argument, ironically I think your response to that comment reveals your insecurity and defensiveness in your position.
Report Post »arx
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:22pmIsle, my understanding is that the mother was PAID for signing a release. This is a legal contract that can‘t be rescinded just because she doesn’t like the message the photo is ultimately used for. Again, she agreed in advance and was paid for her agreement. What are you talking about “without permission…vague implied consent”….all of these terms are in direct contradiction to the facts. Permission was given and nothing is vague or implied on legal consent forms, specifically to avoid nutty thinking like yours. There is logic and law, and people are rightly bound by the decisions they make, particuarly with regard to decisions made for monetary gains.
So you’re suggesting that the “ends” of saving babies lives is not justified by the “means” of posting a ‘bought and paid for’ photo? What kind of wacky world do you live in?
“My reputation, even to be a fool, should be MY possession…” A photo is not a reputation. And even if it was, a deal is a deal. Now you were saying you had a possession…
Report Post »michael48
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:22pmkeep the beautiful little girl and gut the mother…perhaps that would please her…it would sure go a long way to pacify the Planned Parrots crowd…
Report Post »HumbleCitizen
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 1:42pmMy guess is, the only “reading” she did was, “Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Franklin”. You know she was compensated (ie, paid) for her signature to use the photo as “stock”. She knew full well that once she signed the document she had no say how the picture was to be used. The lack of using her brain to THINK before signing on the dotted line came home to roost and now she wants to bellyache about the consequences.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 2:15pm@ POLITICALLYAWAKE……….The pro-abortion group with regard to using the image would have done nothing immoral !!!!! The parents should never sign a waiver if they don’t want that image used indiscriminately. You can maintain the rights over your child’s image by simply not signing the WAIVER and then you can determine where when and how it is utilized. But when you sign that consent you loose that right and it is very well spelled out on the waiver form that you are conceding that option. If it is that important to you then DON”T sign it. No one put a gun to that mother’s head and said sign it…..What in the world can people not understand about that ???? It is not immoral if the person has the option and explanation of what they are relinquishing, for that image to be used without further consent, whether by a pro-abortion group or a pro-life group. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. It is as simple as that !!!!!!!
Report Post »proudconservative
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 3:42pmStop making money off your child then lady. You signed the release and you are the only one responsible for your daughter being on that poster. Absolutely no sympathy here for her.
Maybe the company could remove the poster and then sue the mom for breach of contract, give her that option, maybe…
Report Post »1TrueOne55
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 3:51pmThis is what happens when parents use their kids to make money. They are told at and before they sign these documents that if the pictures become a “stock photo” they can make a royalty from them. They don’t have control over how the purchaser uses these photos since all parties have signed waivers releasing their interests. This means that mom has no “legal” standing but as we see with our current president the law does not apply to skin color.
I have been saying for years that the founder of “Planned” Parenthood follows the eugenics code of conduct, find a way to control the growth of the “Negroe” population it was her idea for the rise of birth control by chemical means ie a pill that would stop pregnancy so that those deemed “undesirable” could be controlled. Eugenics is what drove Margaret Sanger to create Planned Parenthood to carry out her personal beliefs. She is even quoted in her letters and biographies as believing this way. And now facts are bearing that awful truth out.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on February 24, 2011 at 4:48pmPeople continue to confound me!!
Report Post »Parents want their cake and eat it too.
Send your little kids into the modeling/acting/music industry and you’re selling your soul.
Pay the piper folks!!! You can’t have it both ways.
Islesfordian
Posted on February 25, 2011 at 2:41pm“So you’re suggesting that the “ends” of saving babies lives is not justified by the “means” of posting a ‘bought and paid for’ photo? What kind of wacky world do you live in?”
It is wrong to do something wrong to achieve good end when it would have been possible to do a right thing to achieve the same end. There was no reason Life Always couldn’t have used the picture of a girl willing to be part of the campaign. They chose not to bother. Not bothering to take the better path is never justified justy because you are trying to “save babies’ lives”.
Besides, how many lives will be saved by a campaign that lets an unncecesary controversy cloud the issue? It’s not your intent that is relevant. It is the effectiveness of your actions. You argue, frankly, just like a liberal. because you mean to do good, that justifies everything. Nonsense. Look at all the econuts who justify whatever they do by the fact that they are trying to “save the planet”. the point of ethics is that it is supposed to keep us grounded in the actual nature of our actions and their knowable consequences.
I used to work with Operation Rescue. I stopped, not because I thought it was morally or ethically wrong but because I judged it ineffective and even counterproductive in turning the hearts of the nation away from abortion. It was about as effective as screaming at atheists that they are going to hell. they may be, but they aren’t likely to listen to someone screaming at them.
“A photo is not a reputation”
Interesting idea. I don’t believe you really think that, or understand the consequences of that statement. If I took a photo of you and portrayed you doing something immoral do you not think that might harm your reputation just a bit?
“And even if it was, a deal is a deal”
Except the deal may not have been clear enough to justify morally. Morals are not made by law, as your statement seems to indicate. Furthermore, there is the issue of the girl’s consent. It is HER image that is used. Should she not have a say? She did not sigh the consent. Would it be impossible to ask her permission.
What is amazing in these comments is that among so many who contest the rightness of abortion, which is legal, so many fall back upon the mere letter of the law to defend the use of the photo, AS IF the law declaring it permissable made it so, when that line of reasoning is specifically rejected, and rightly so, in the case of abortion.
I know it’s a hard thing to be consistent, but you have to at least make the effort.
Report Post »